Save and Conserve

I've been following the Presidential primary season very closely ... mainly because I'm a dork & a wannabe wonk, but also because I think it's a crucial election for the country. Obviously, we have an incredible number of problems in the US ... I happen to think energy is the biggest of the lot (which is really saying something when you think about it).

On the Democratic side, it's difficult to know where Clinton, Obama & Edwards stand on energy because, well, it's difficult to know where they stand on anything. Our media coverage is not conducive to issues-based news reporting & the debates aren't satisfactory either. How about picking a topic and letting the candidates truly debate that topic (by asking & answering each other's questions) for 30 minutes. Why do we need moderators? Did Lincoln & Douglas use moderators? And those were known as great debates: informative, entertaining, enlightening & helpful in deciding who has better positions on issues that matter. They were substantive, meaty; they were real, something that is sorely missing in today's operating environment.

Anyway, over at Grist, there is a page that helps us get at least some sense of the positions of the various candidates with respect to energy. There are a few different topics: Cap&Trade, Renewable Energy, Biofuels, Coal, etc. & then a blurb summarizing the candidate's position on each topic.

They also cover the Republican side, but since I don't like their candidates, I'll take a pass.

In a nutshell, there is not much difference between the 3 leading Dem candidates on energy (from this high-level perspective). The single biggest difference appears to be on nuclear energy. Edwards is against it, Obama supports it & Clinton is "agnostic" ... which really means she is against it for the time being.

So, if you were wondering where the Dems stand on energy ... they stand together with the exception of nuclear, which Obama thinks is a good idea & the other 2 want to stay away from. Personally, I think Obama wins; nuclear in tandem with plug-in hybrid vehicles would go a long way towards reducing our use of liquid hydrocarbons for transportation. I don't know if that's Obama's vision for nuclear energy, but I hope that's how he sees the situation.

Posted by tom c. at 12:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Isn't it remarkable that America still doesn't have an offshore wind farm? We really need to do better ... and it looks as though the Cape Wind development (near Nantucket in Massachusetts) is going to happen. Better late than never, eh?

The US Department of Energy tells us:

The Interior Department's Minerals Management Service (MMS) has issued a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the Cape Wind Energy Project and finds no major environmental impacts from the proposed project.

The MMS report (warning: 5Mb PDF) includes the following:

• Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound is environmentally and economically superior to the alternative sites that were studied.
• Cape Wind will reduce regional emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) by 880,000 tons per year. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes climate change.
• Cape Wind will reduce regional air pollution emissions such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide that harm human health.
• Cape Wind will create hundreds of jobs.
• Cape Wind will provide a needed supply of electricity and improve electric diversification and reliability.
• Cape Wind will go a long way toward Massachusetts being able to achieve its renewable energy requirements under the State's Renewable Portfolio Standard.
• Cape Wind will not have major impacts on birds, fish, marine mammals, fishing, tourism, or on sea or air navigation.

On the bright side, it has only taken about 7 years and $100 oil to make people see that the list above makes a lot of sense in a lot of different ways for a lot of different people. Baby steps ...

Posted by tom c. at 10:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Clever video pretty clearly illustrates the problems ahead:

In a world where oil becomes scarce, how will you deal? If you're not thinking about this ... you're setting yourself up for a rude awakening. My advice: start thinking ASAP.

Posted by tom c. at 11:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From the author of "Collapse" and "Guns, Germs & Steel", a very worthwhile opinion piece in today's New York Times. Totally on the money.

Posted by tom c. at 7:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)